DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on 04/29/2026 have been acknowledged accepted and entered. Previously claims 1 – 20 were pending. Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled and claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Currently claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 19 are now still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments directed towards claim 1 and 11, the applicant states that Kim fails to teach the amended limitation of “determine final points, among the candidate points, corresponding to the at least one straight line.” The applicant adds that Kim is silent on determining final points corresponding to a straight line. However, Kim does teach of the final points corresponding to a straight line as seen in paragraphs 80 – 84 of Kim, wherein 18 lane points (final points) are selected from 27 points (candidate points) based on a predetermined distance from the lidar sensor, and wherein these selected points are used to create the segments. The segments are then used to determine the base lane which is a comprised of straight lines as seen in figure 8.
The arguments directed towards the amended limitations “determining a curve by curve-fitting the final points as the lane line” are persuasive, specifically the argument directed towards Lee, wherein the applicant states that Lee only converts lane recognition information into lane information using a curve fitting algorithm. However, these arguments are moot as a new grounds of rejection are used to reject this amended limitation to claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Jaekwang et al. (KR 20230001410 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Kim) in view of Wu; Mo et al. (US 20240248186 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Wu).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches:
A method of recognizing a lane line based on LiDAR (See ¶ 1 – 3, wherein a method is disclosed of recognizing a lane line based on LiDAR)
acquiring candidate points of a lane line around an ego vehicle by using a LiDAR sensor; (See ¶ 13, 20 wherein points (candidate points) of a lane line are acquired around a vehicle using a LiDAR sensor)
determining at least one straight line using the candidate points; (See ¶ 81, 83, wherein the cubic curve which is a straight line made up of selected lane points is determined, furthermore, as can be seen in figure 8, the cubic curve is a straight line made from the points (candidate points))
determining final points, among the candidate points, corresponding to the at least one straight line, (See ¶ 80 – 87, Figure 8, wherein 18 lane points (final points) are selected from 27 points (candidate points) based on a predetermined distance from the lidar sensor, and wherein these selected points are used to create the segments. The segments are then used to determine the base lane which is a comprised of straight lines as seen in figure 8).
Kim does not explicitly disclose determining a curve by curve fitting the final points as the lane line.
However, Wu teaches of determining a curve by curve fitting the final points as the lane line. (See ¶ 49 and 35 figure 6 and 2, wherein lane marker points (final points) that are a part of a curved road, ‘602’ in figure 6, (curve) are fitted to the lane lines as the lane line).
As taught by Wu fitting a curve to a lane line to determine a curve allows for lane lines to be determined on curved roads. (See ¶ 49 wherein the lane lines of a curved road are determined via the use of curve fitting the lane marker points to the lane line). As both the teachings of Kim and Wu deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the use of LIDAR, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with Wu to teach of determining a curve by curve fitting the final points as the lane line in order to determine the lane lines of a curved road.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Kim in view of Wu teaches:
Acquiring LiDAR point data for each frame of a plurality of time frames, (See Kim ¶ 35 wherein point data is acquired from each frame of a plurality of time frames using LiDAR)
acquiring ground points for each frame from the LiDAR point data for each frame, (See Kim ¶ 35 wherein ground points (point data indicating road surface /ground (road surface points)) are acquired from each frame of a plurality of time frames using LiDAR)
and selecting candidate points for each frame from the ground points for each frame (See Kim ¶ 35 wherein lane points (candidate points) are selected/extracted from point data of road surface points (ground points) for each frame of a plurality of frames).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Kim in view of Wu teaches:
Selecting, as candidate points, ground points located at a first set distance or farther from the ego vehicle in a longitudinal direction among the ground points for each frame; (See Kim ¶ 91, 35 wherein lane points (candidate points) are selected amongst point data including ground point data, at a set distance or father from the vehicle in a longitudinal or vertical distance for each frame).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Kim in view of Wu teaches:
Correcting coordinate values of the candidate points for each frame according to a movement amount of the ego vehicle. (See Kim ¶ 35 wherein tracking of the lane occurs, necessarily meaning the lane points position/coordinates are updated, using LiDAR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Kim in view of Wu teaches:
Determining a smaller number of secondary candidate points from whole candidate points obtained by combining the candidate points for each frame. (See Kim ¶ 81 – 83, and 35 wherein Lane points (candidate points) are grouped together to create segments (secondary candidate points) which are used in the determination of the one straight line, wherein the candidate points are obtained from different frames).
Regarding independent claim 11, claim 11 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Regarding dependent claim 12, claim 12 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 2. Please see the discussion of claim 2 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Regarding dependent claim 13, claim 13 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 3. Please see the discussion of claim 3 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Regarding dependent claim 14, claim 14 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 4. Please see the discussion of claim 4 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Regarding dependent claim 15, claim 15 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 5. Please see the discussion of claim 5 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Jaekwang et al. (KR 20230001410 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Kim) in view of Wu; Mo et al. (US 20240248186 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Wu) further in view of Lu; Weixin et al. (KR20200096408 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Lu).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kim in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose:
Determining the secondary candidate points comprises applying voxel grid filtering to the whole candidate points.
However Lu teaches of determining the secondary candidate points comprises applying voxel grid filtering to the whole candidate points. (See ¶ 69 wherein the LiDAR points are put through a voxel grid filter creating the secondary candidate points).
As taught by Lu determining the secondary candidate points via voxel grid filtering allows for better storage efficiency. (See ¶ 69 wherein better efficiency occurs once the LiDAR points are put through a voxel grid filter). As both the teachings of Kim in view of Wu and Lu deal with the technical field of image processing using LiDAR it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Wu with Lu to teach of determining the secondary candidate points comprises applying voxel grid filtering to the whole candidate points in order for there to be better storage efficiency.
Regarding dependent claim 16, claim 16 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 6. Please see the discussion of claim 6 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim; Jaekwang et al. (KR 20230001410 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Kim) in view of Wu; Mo et al. (US 20240248186 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Wu) further in view of Abbott; Joshua et al. (US 20240280372 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Abbott).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Kim in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose:
Determining a straight line through Hough transformation for the secondary candidate points.
However, Abbott teaches of determining a straight line through Hough transformation for the secondary candidate points. (See ¶ 3 wherein a straight line is determined using Hough Transform using the LiDAR points (secondary candidate points)).
As taught by Abbott using the Hough Transform is especially effective for determining a straight line. (See ¶ 3 wherein the Hough Transform is stated to be efficient for straight line detection using LiDAR points). As both the teachings of Kim in view of Wu and Abbott deal with the technical field of image processing using LiDAR, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Wu with Abbott to teach of Determining a straight line through Hough transformation for the secondary candidate points in order for the straight line detection to be efficient.
Regarding dependent claim 17, claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to claim 7. Please see the discussion of claim 17 above. Furthermore, Kim teaches of an apparatus comprising an interface configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle from a LiDAR sensor; a memory configured to store instructions for recognizing the lane line based on LiDAR; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See Kim ¶ 36 – 38, 42 and 43 wherein an apparatus/lane detection device comprises an interface/transceiver configured to receive LiDAR data about surroundings of an ego vehicle; a memory configured to store instructions/program for the lane detection; and a processor to execute the instructions from the memory).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter:
Regarding clams 8 and 18, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the limitations of claims 7 and 17 respectively, further comprising determining a straight line by applying Hough transformation to the secondary candidate points for each individual search region having a set angular range for a search region having a set range on both left and right sides in front of the ego vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights